Philosophy Books

'The Return of History' is virtually an afterdinner monologue where the dinner and wine must be terrific. The point of the book is that with political realism the liberal political order collapses. 'The Return of History' lacks arguements and fails to deliver a broad presentation of facts. Basically the books sums to zip.

The author, Robert Kagan, is a brilliant writer, historian and political scientist, much too bright to be a part of the Dick Cheney staff, yet he conceals those prejudices in his writing. He has become one of my favorite authors, and this book is a wonderful study of the history of America's expansionist foreigh policy.

In this book, Kagan offers a brief and concise overview of contemporary geopolitics in an increasingly multi-polar world. The hope at the end of the Cold War was that liberal values of democracy and capitalism would spread internationally. The resulting economic interdependence and shared prosperity would result in an end to historic conflicts rooted in differences in ideology, competition for resources or pursuit of power. However, over the course of the past 10-20 years US global hegemonic power has diminished as other powers have arisen whose national characteristics are not shaped chiefly by liberal values. Nations that are happily autocratic instead of democratic wield increasing power and have economic interests that do not always harmonize perfectly with the rest. Geopolitical alliances among many different actors become increasingly complex as support is sought to develop or maintain regional influence, protect ideology, pursue economic interests or maintain sovereignty. These diplomatic relations reflect more the many competing identities present in the geopolitical landscape of the 19th century than a contemporary vision of a world with one shared identity and one common pursuit. Happily, the book is not as moralizing and despairing as the title suggests. However, clearly the new global scenario revealed does present its own challenges that will need to be addressed by present and future leaders. The author does occasionally attribute current developments in the modern geopolitical landscape to his pessimistic fundamental beliefs about human nature, however these remarks are few and far between and the author does not overtly seek to make this the crux of the story. Overall, I found this a quick and useful read to bring one up to speed on current geopolitical happenings and would recommend it.

This short book reads more like a long essay than a book and focuses on the post-Cold War world. Like many recent books, this book is also concerned with the United States' current position in the world given the rise of China, the EU, Russia and Iran. The underlying thesis is that in the years to come states will align themselves not based on region or culture, but rather by form of government and foreign policy. In other words, the world's democracies will strengthen ties amongst themselves by way of economic and political ties while the world's autocracies (namely China, Russia and Iran) will further strengthen its bonds, thereby creating a counterbalance to western democracies. In many respects, such an alignment is already underway and there are no signs of letting up. Kagan suggests that liberal democracy has survived the most deadly century of mankind and it is stronger than it ever has been globally. He doesn't argue that democracy is the superior form of government, but he clearly recognizes that if the world is ever to succeed in its quest for worldwide peace and prosperity, it will be up to the United States and the rest of the world's democracies to get us there. But for the time being, post-Cold War dreams of global unity and cooperation have failed and history as we knew it has returned.

Reading Kagan after Zakaria's The Post-American World is refreshing. It feels as though I'm returning to the real world. This is partly because Kagan is an Historical Realist. It is also because Zakaria is an idealist. He may deny that classification, but he has faith in his statistics, trends and economic forecasts. He looks toward the future confident in what his numbers tell him. He has tasted European idealism and declared it good. The EU followed by a host if idealistic followers has been dreaming. Not only that, they have been operating as though their dreams were a reality. Marx dreamed similar dreams long ago. First he dreamed them and then someone made a reality of them. But things can go wrong when the rest of the world isn't dreaming with you.

Kagan, unlike Zakaria, looks at the present in terms of the past. He sees the return of 19th century power politics - something Fukuyama scoffed at. For Kagan, the EU experiment isn't working very well.

On page 20 Kagan writes, "So what happens when a twenty-first-century entity like the EU faces the challenge of a traditional power like Russia? The answer will play itself out in coming years, but the contours of the conflict are already emerging - in diplomatic standoffs over Kosovo, Ukraine, Georgia, and Estonia; in conflicts over gas and oil pipelines; in nasty diplomatic exchanges between Russian and Great Britain; and in a return of Russian military exercises of a kind not seen since the Cold war.

"Europeans are apprehensive and have reason to be. The nations of the European Union placed a mammoth bet in the 1990s. They bet on the new world order, on the primacy of geo-economics over geopolitics, in which a huge and productive European economy would compete as an equal with the United States and China. . . They cut back on their defense budgets and slowed the modernization of their militaries, calculating that soft power was in and hard power was out. They believed Europe would be a model for the world, and in a world modeled after the European Union, Europe would be strong.

"For a while this seemed a good bet. . . [but] with Russia back on its feet and seeking to restore its great power status, including predominance in its traditional spheres of influence, Europe finds itself in a most unexpected and unwanted position of geopolitical competition. This great twenty-first-century entity has, through enlargement, embroiled itself in a very nineteenth-century confrontation.

"Europe may be ill-equipped to respond to a problem that it never anticipated having to face. . . Many western Europeans already regret having brought the eastern European countries into the Union and are unlikely to seek even more confrontations with Russia by admitting such states as Georgia and Ukraine."

Kagan wrote his book before Russia invaded Georgia, but he saw that coming. He writes on page 24, "What would Europe and the United States do if Russia played hardball in either Ukraine or Georgia? They might well do nothing. Post-modern Europe can scarcely bring itself to contemplate a return of conflict involving a great power and will go to great lengths to avoid it. Nor is the United States eager to take on Russia when it is so absorbed in the Middle East. Nevertheless, a Russian confrontation with Ukraine or Georgia would usher in a brand-new world - or rather a very old world. As one Swedish analyst has noted, `We're in a new era of geopolitics. You can't pretend otherwise.'"

Will Kane threw his badge in the dirt and rode out of town, and the town didn't care. Frank Miller was dead. Who needs Will Kane? But then a few years later Frank Miller, wearing a ski mask, rises from his grave. He isn't dead after all. Quick, send for Will Kane. Does anyone know where Will Kane is?

Lawrence Helm
www.lawrencehelm.com

Iyengar himself has disavowed this book long ago...even so, it's the single greatest reference book out there.

The first thing that will blow you away is the treatise on hatha yoga. The ease with which he describes the philosophy of yoga foreshadows his complete book on the subject. It's quite a foreshadowing!

The bulk of the book is an exhaustive detailed pictorial and written description of most practical poses (and several impractical ones).

However, I fell in love with his close to 300-week practice schedule in the back of the book. I must say that it's implausible that someone can follow it exactly and include all the poses all the time (even he says to skip the ones you can't master), it's a very keen insight into what HIS practice might have been like back when this book was published, before he started a huge yoga school.

Now he has curriculum that changes every year (to keep teacher coming back to $$$chool - smart man!). The current Iyengar school details exact angles in which to keep your body in specific poses. I love 'Light on Yoga' because it lacks that exactness, and allows you to feel the energy of poses, rather than getting stuck in anatomy of the poses.

A must read, and must re-read, and a must re-re-re-re-re-.........

Difinitive guide by Iyengar. Great for any level. Answers all questions on correct form and alignment. It's the "bible" of yoga.

This is a great book. I especially love the yoga plans given in the end and prescriptions. Great buy. If you truly want to link in to hatha yoga. Get this.

This book generally shows the progression of the poses from beginner to advanced. You will not be talked down to in this book. I like having more information then I need so that I can reference back and progress when I'm ready.

Great book for anybody, but especially needed for beginers. For every asana there is at least one picture to illustrate the proper technique. Helps with breathing and flow, describing how your muscles are working and proper focus.

The translation is superb! The notes are outstanding! Get this book if you want the most out of the Republic!

Bloom's essay is possibly the best commentary on Plato I've read. An overly simple summary is that he suggests many of Socrates' proposals were intentionally preposterous, with the aim of leading his interlocutors to grasp that no truly legitimate political system is possible, and that the best course for individuals is to tend their souls, necessarily within a polity, going along with its requirements as necessary, but avoiding involvement in it as much as possible. He also suggests that much of what Socrates says is not a definite political program, but directed to the particular characters of his interlocutors (Glaucon and Adeimantus) to lead them towards philosophy and away from their particular weaknesses (as Socrates saw them).

Bloom makes a very good case for this interpretation, which I've grossly oversimplified (and left important parts out). There'll never be an end to the debate, but this essay is one to be reckoned with by anyone interested in the Republic. Regarding the translation, it's very precise; someone with a little knowledge of Greek can often see the Greek through the English. This makes for less flowing language; with a lesser dialogue such as the Euthyphro I prefer a more literary translation, but it seems appropriate for such an important work. As for the Republic itself:

In the West, at least, this is the touchstone of all political philosophy, and Plato pretty much covered all the issues people have been fighting and arguing about since people started wondering how societies should be organized and governed. It's easy to say that Plato's ideal state is nutty beyond imagination, but that misses the point. He asked the questions that really matter, and just about all of them, and considered them deeply and carefully, and then came up with his nutty system. (It's for us to ponder what he meant us to consider carefully, to accept, to reject, and what was humor).

We live in a largely unquestioning age - maybe virtually everyone has. But it's hard for, say, a modern American to read Plato's assessment of the relative merits and demerits of different political systems and come away with the kind of mindless idolization of "democracy" with which we're inundated by politicians and the media. It's easy to say Plato's system is goofy, but do you ever hear anyone in America publicly saying, "Democracy has a lot of serious weaknesses, one of them being its tendency to develop a pitifully dumbed-down culture." Or, "Elites provide some real benefits to society, as does an aristocratic element." Could these ideas have some merit? Well, we never even get that far since they're too blasphemous for our society (even though they're partially built into our Constitution).

It's funny how open-minded we consider our modern selves, but when's the last time you heard a serious, thoughtful critique of modern liberal democracy (as opposed to a silly neo-Marxist rant)? Plato had the courage, the detachment, and the brilliance to give his honest assessments of the various systems (honest but not straightforward, with much irony, overstatement, paradox, intentional contradiction and crucial matter between the lines), to compare them and then judge them. His purpose, at least apparently, had little to do with an agenda other than asking a question - what might constitute good government? And not only good, but the best? Those questions require asking and answering questions about human nature and the nature of social relationships.

Plato asks so well and considers so well, and so comprehensively, that his ideal system (regardless of whether he was even very serious about it) isn't the issue. What is good government? What is virtue? Was there genuine legitimacy in the founding of any existing states? Is truly legitimate government possible in this world? And, depending on the answers, how should we live? Plato doesn't provide the answers, at least not overtly. The significance, I think, is that he gets us to consider all the important questions he considers, many of which we otherwise probably wouldn't have considered, and among other things to then uncover our unexamined assumptions and prejudices and reassess them.

Just a note to correct two reviewers who praise Alan Bloom's translation of The Republic on this page. This edition was translated by Francis M. Cornford, a classics scholar at Cambridge University in the 20th century, not by Prof. Bloom. While I'm sure Alan Bloom's translation is deservedly praised by the two reviewers, their reviews should be removed and placed on the review page for the correct edition.

The main arguments of The Republic are so well known that they hardly need restatement in this review. The central issues in this book are of great importance, but one should also take note of the side issues that Plato raises in political theory and philosophy.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this book is its coverage of issues in theoretical politics. The Republic covers so much ground in Political Theory and Political Philosophy that it is hard to see any other great thinker as completely original. Plato hinted at or mentioned ideas in politics later developed by Rousseau, Marx, Nietche, Hayek... All political theorists should cite Plato, because he thought of practically everything of importance in political theory.

Personally, I find Rousseau more interesting as a pure political philosopher, but that is not saying much. Rousseau was an absolute genius. Plato had brilliant insights in political philosophy, and he anticipated important elements of Rousseau's work anyway.

The Republic does have an Achilles heel: economics (or political economy). The problem here is not so much that he was wrong about economics, but rather than he passed over this subject. Much of what Plato wrote about his ideal Republic is hard to defend in light of economic theory. Some might think me unfair for criticizing Plato by modern standards, but general economic laws were neither different nor unintelligible in Plato's time. Furthermore, Aristotle had a few insights that fit with what we now know as economics. How could someone as brilliant as Plato not see the issues in his book from "the economic point of view"? After all, key elements of modern economics boil down to common sense. Furthermore, there are subtleties to modern economics that raise serious problems with his idea of rule by a philosopher-king.

The lack of economic reasoning in The Republic does not really detract much from its greatness. Given the situation in the ancient world, it was only natural that great thinkers would focus on politics, and pass over economics. Economic issues did not really become apparent until the first wave of Globalozation began, so Plato should have focused on politics instead. That being said, Plato's Republic stands as THE most important book of Political Theory ever written.

This edition of The Republic is important because it includes Alan Blooms interpretive essay. Bloom makes you think more deeply about Plato. This book is a must-have for anyone with serious interest in political or interdisciplinary academic interests.

Thank you Dr. Bloom,
i'll simply say i've never enjoyed reading the Republic that much. It's indeed the best literal translation for such a great work, and i encourage everyone to have it.

Shane Claiborne has written a highly personal account of his journey as a follower of Christ and the call he feels to live whole-heartedly and radically for Christ. Much of The Irresistible Revolution is inspirational. Shane writes primarily to American evangelicals and calls them out of their depressingly normal lives. Along the way, he levels numerous criticisms at the church, many of which seem to me on target.

The American evangelical church has in many ways become indistinguishable from secular culture - by its materialism, marketing, bigger-is-better mentality, and celebrity adoration. Worship services and youth ministry have almost become forms of entertainment. The church cultivates believers, but not always followers. Christians read the Bible, but there is much in it that they don't really believe, or at least don't follow. Shane challenges his readers to take Jesus at his word when he spoke about the poor being blessed; the last being first; loving our enemies; denying ourselves; and serving Christ himself by serving the poor, lonely, sick, and imprisoned. And Shane criticizes the mixture of faith, patriotism, and conservative politics that characterize parts of the evangelical landscape.

Shane doesn't beat up his readers. He writes with a light, often humorous touch. He teaches almost entirely through stories, mostly his own. One of his appealing qualities is his willingness to take the unconventional route, to take risks for God. He seems to have cultivated an enjoyment of risk-taking, almost like that of a prankster. There is a streak of mischievousness that runs through his stories, although I think it sometimes gets out of hand.

I wanted to like this book. There isn't very much about my walk of faith that I would call radical. Serious and heart-felt, yes. Sacrificial, to a degree. But radical, very little. One line from the book has stayed with me: "We have insulated ourselves from miracles. We no longer live with such reckless faith that we need them. There is rarely room for the transcendent in our lives."

However, as I read deeper into the book I began to notice many problems. By the end of the book I was pretty tired of these problems, several of which I describe below. Nevertheless, The Irresistible Revolution contains many good observations and is the kind of book that will probably inspire and stick with many readers.

Now for the problems:

- I noticed an occasional harshness, even scorn, toward Christians with whom Shane disagrees. I don't know why he thinks this attitude is okay.

- Shane criticizes the mixture of biblical faith and right wing politics that exists in much of the church today. But his own politics are clearly left wing, and his own faith and vision for the church are just as tinged by those politics. Nowhere does he acknowledge the truly difficult judgments involved in rightly engaging the culture with the gospel. Nor does he acknowledge the long cultural and moral slide that the Christian right has tried to address or propose alternative ways to address it.

- Shane is anti-war and anti-death penalty. His theology on these issues is anchored in Jesus' teaching to love our enemies and appears to preclude any use of violent force under any circumstances. Does he even believe the fight against the Axis powers in World War II was wrong? One of his heroes is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor who opposed the Nazi regime. Shane approvingly quotes Bonhoeffer, and calls him a fellow resister, but nowhere mentions the problem (for a pacifist) that Bonhoeffer tried to assassinate Hitler.

- Shane condemns the Iraq war, but the war he condemns is a straw man. Based on his description, one would think the war is merely an American conquest of Iraq. In fact, it is more complicated, consisting of a war to depose Saddam Hussein, a war against the Jihadists who subsequently poured into Iraq to destabilize the new democracy, and a civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

- At times Shane seems anti-capitalist, but he does not make his position completely clear, nor does he say what economic system would be an improvement over capitalism.

- Shane seems to romanticize the poor and credit to them a nobility that I don't see. He even refers to them as his teachers. The poor, at least the poor in America, are not simply victims of economic injustice. In my (limited) experience working with the homeless in San Francisco, I have mostly encountered people with a complex of problems, many being of their own making, and poverty being just one. These people are created by God and deserve practical help and love, but they are not particularly romantic or noble.

- In his anti-war and anti-poverty advocacy, Shane often expresses mushy sentiments about how we're all one big family, regardless of country, race, class, or religion. At times he seems to confuse the Body of Christ with the family of mankind. He sometimes sounds like mainline Protestantism of 50 years ago, with its de-emphasis of orthodox doctrines and its emphasis on the social gospel.

- Early in the book Shane refers to himself as a postmodern: "The things that transform us, especially us 'postmoderns,' are people and experiences. Political ideologies and religious doctrines just aren't very compelling, even if they're true." Perhaps I'm reading too much into these lines, but I found them disturbing. As a philosophical ideology, postmodernism holds that objective truth either does not exist or cannot be known; all one can know are stories, and no story is better than any other story. Reality, truth, and value are held to be arbitrary cultural and linguistic constructions. But Christianity has always claimed that objective truth exists and is knowable - truth about God, humans, and the world - not exhaustive truth, but real truth. I don't know what we're left with if we abandon this philosophical foundation.

- Shane rightly asks what Jesus has to say about this life and this world, but at one point he asks the strange question: "Even if there were no heaven and there were no hell, would you still follow Jesus? Would you follow him for the life, joy, and fulfillment he gives you right now?" But Paul came very close to answering this question in 1 Corinthians 15: "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." And: "If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'" If the gospel offers anything, it offers hope - hope that we are not accidents, that we are loved by a good God, that our lives are going somewhere, and that we don't face personal extinction at death. It is only this hope that gives sufficient impetus to follow Jesus.

Yes, by my rating you can see that I love this book, however that's not what I intend to write about. I simply want to say that you should not rely on the reviews to form your opinion of this book.

I have repeatedly recommended this book to my friends, Christian or not, and whether they liked it, or agreed with it etc, it made them think, it created dialog. For those reasons alone I recommend this book. I do not believe that simply because one reviewer claims it to be biblically grounded, or not biblically grounded should change your decision to read it you need to read it and make your own decisions because whether you agree with him or not there are some important concepts that need to be considered even those who rated it poorly have said this. If you feel like you won't agree and don't want to lend money to the cause then go to a library, buy a cheap used copy, or borrow one. It would be irresponsible to make a judgment about the author based on someone else's review.

"Christianity," says author Shane Claiborne, "often has offered little to the world, other than the hope that things will be better in heaven." This statement appears on the first page of the book, and it's a big clue that Shane isn't spinning a newer, fresher version of the same old predictable Christian party line that everyone else repeats. In fact, the whole purpose of The Irresistible Revolution is to present a radical idea of what it means to be a Christian. Even more importantly, it's about how one man, without aggrandizing himself, chose to do something daring, heroic and good with his life. Instead of buying into the prescribed formula for Christian living, Shane challenges us to break free of the empty roles and rituals "the living dead" pledge allegiance to, and take the path of Love. He talks about how he was "suffocated by Christianity, but thirsty for God."

Say good-bye to Jesus message t-shirts, big expensive churches, and tele-evangelical pleas for followers and cash. Say hello to a man who speaks in love, acts in love, serves humanity in love. This book is a collection of Shane's autobiographical stories about his transformation from a cookie-cutter evangelical youth to a disciple who thinks outside the box and who isn't afraid to shine his light for the world. We are fortunate to be on the planet at the same time with one so aware and one so willing to walk the talk. If you only read one book this year, make it Irresistible Revolution, and allow the passion from Shane's mega big heart to move you to loving action.

Message of Love:
"People always want to define you by what you do. I started saying "I'm not too concerned with what I'm going to do. I am more interested in who I am becoming. I want to be a lover of God and people."

What does it mean to love and how is love of God demonstrated? This is the fundamental question Shane explores and answers. Is it by passing out God-flyers on street corners, or is it by passing out bread to the homeless and poor and then teaching them how to make bread for themselves? In January 1997 Shane and five other like-minded cohorts moved into a little row house in Kensington, a poor neighborhood in Philadelphia, and formed The Simple Way. The Simple way is not just about managing poverty, but completely ending it.

"There are plenty of liberals who talk about poverty and injustice but rarely encounter the poor, living detached lives of socially responsible but comfortable consumption." To eradicate poverty it's essential to redefine the meaning of family and to become radically inclusive. There should be no difference between your relationship to someone who's connected to you by marriage, blood, religion or nationality and to someone who lives in the street or another country. Violence and disregard is born out of a narrow, rigid belief about family. Shane asks us to consider "what happens when people fall in love with each other across class lines?" There is nothing worth killing for, but there's something worth dying for -- and that is the love in our hearts that we have for each other.

Did you know that each day 35,000 children in the world starve to death? It's like a 911 event every single day or a tsunami that never ends. Poverty is not created by God. It's created by you and me because we don't see our brothers and sisters as ourselves. What's needed are concrete acts of love. No one can see God, but we can see each other, and God can live in and through us. Shane recommends "instead of waiting for God's special plan for your life, go find where God is doing work, and join in."

This guy understands what Jesus would REALLY do. This book is easy to read and hard to put down. It appeals to my idealistic side. I recommend it for Christians and people considering Christianity.

Definitely worth reading. Will be a 'tough' read for most of us as it lays out what being a true christian is and most of us aren't even close to living it out as it's spelled out here..and I tend to agree with this 'brothas overarching view. However, it does offer a glimpse of hope...even if we all have to take little steps everyday to achieve it and some of the stories he tells are truly uplifting. True there's not much in the way of "middle ground" offered or a step by step guide as pointied out by several reviewers...but that's not the point...Jesus didn't give 49% or 90% effort. It WAS all or nothing. I think what needs to be expanded on is ok, for some, all or nothing might be difficult for most of us, b/c we're already born in and entrenched in the capital economy...we didn't really choose it, we're here now...where can indivuals (with debt, child support, existing health issues, etc) begin. I think if Shane extends more on the "little things" that can lead us as individuals to becoming a true Christian...it would make it more inviting and at least more understanding for some of those on this list of reviewers. Shane, don't stop what you're doing. It is inspiring and yes infectious.

I have only begun to explore this book but am finding it helpful due to the techniques and exercises it lays out in a user-friendly manner that should prove helpful in working with clients with a variety of issues to teach basic mindfulness, anxiety reduction, and distraction techniques.

This workbook is much better than Marsha Linehan's. It is written for the everyday person rather than a physcologist or physchiatrist. The exercises are easy to understand and extremely helpful. My therapist even prefers this to Linehan's.

If you manage enough creative people, you will need to know what coaching and therapy is available to help them. This book is a must because the method is so powerful.

I have found this workbook to be an invaluable resource in working with clients that struggle with distress tolerance. Not only useful for BPD clients, but also clients with addictions and other self harming behaviors. Everyone that I have used this with has found it to be extremely helpful.

Its an easy read but hard to understand at first. I suggest reading it through once before trying the lessons. The publisher must have rushed this book through I found three errors that should have been caught. One reference to a chart (wrong page). Gender shift (female becomes male in example). Number in the middle of a word. These aren't game breakers but the publisher needs to use a fact checker and spell check to have a great workbook. But the information is important and expressed well i would recommend this book.

This edition presents the standard translation of the Communist Manifesto, in use for 120 years, introduced by a long essay exploring the European intellectual ferment that produced the work in 1848. Given the importance of the Manifesto in history, I would have appreciated a different introductory essay, one written with the general reader in mind. By the time I finally reached the text, I still felt ill equipped to understand its unique language and message. I needed a better basic commentary and perhaps a more contemporary translation of the work itself.

The idea of this book is simple enough: it's Marx's and Engels' concept and plan for a totally fair society where everything is shared and everyone is (supposedly) equal.

The problem is, "...absolute power corrupts absolutely," and when authoritarian dictators implement these ideas it always results in two percent of the people having everything and the remaining ninety-eight percent having nothing.

The core focus of this political persuasion is on "the worker". It evolved from a prior eternity of monarchs dominating the poor and a response to the scourge of serfdom. Ultimately, Lenin used "The Communist Manifesto" as a means of promoting the Russian Revolution which ultimately became the cultural horror which the rest of us came to know as The Soviet Union. In other words, it provided the basis for a ploy on the part of the Bolsheviks (Communist Party).

During the years of Communism, the Soviet workers used to convey a covertly-spoken credo: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us". That pretty much sums up how Marx's and Engels' plan played out in actual practice.

Strangely, few people ever make the observation that the ideas of Marx and Engels were not at all original. Thomas More (1478-1535) conveyed almost the same concept when he scribed his famous work: Thomas More's Utopia. In fact, people who have obviously never read "Utopia" would clearly not cite it as "the ideal society" if they were even slightly apprised of the numerous horrors of that fictional society. And so goes "The Communist Manifesto" in actual practice.

Still, this is an incredible, eye-opening read and we SHOULD read it if for no other reason than to see how mans' best-laid plans can easily go awry. Highly recommended.

Communism is dead as a doornail. Those who think otherwise are simply brainwashed by propaganda and completely ignorant of world history. The Soviet Union collapsed after decades of backwardness and Marxism, not that its economic failure was ever in doubt. Their pseudo-"industrialization" caused huge famines that killed tens of millions, and did not reduce the technological lag that persisted for decades - they were in the stone ages technologically. They were only saved in World War II by American lend-lease shipments, and then donations of grain and wheat. The Soviet Union was a failure, and was lagging behind the West in industrial production, agriculture, military strength, applied science, everything. Their physical indices and statistics (along with the alleged achievements of the military and space program) were proven to be bungled lies and propaganda. Their Marxist economists were incompetent, and failed to solve any planning problems. Those who deny these historical facts are just as pathetic and ignorant as Holocaust deniers or flat-Earthers. Cuba hardly fared any better - it was ruled by a brutal dictatorship, and it is lost to history how many millions were also killed by famines and harebrained government schemes. Those who still doubt this need to WAKE UP, get some sunlight and stop reading pseudo-intellectual tracts like this.

Kinda a pointless book now that communism has been proven ineffective. I guess if you still want to live in this type of society you can move to Russa, China, Cuba etc. Lucky for them they have the US to give them foreign aid. Communism would be dead within a few decades without a capitolistic nation to support it.

...and PLEASE read beyond the Manifesto! Ignore the anti-Marx ideologues who do not actually read him, and give him a shot. Forget, for a minute, all preconceived notions of communism, and take his writings as though they are fresh and brand new. Only then should you proceed on to reading criticism of him, history of Marxism, etc. The reader who is willing to undertake an actual study of Marx will find him infinitely valuable, and very astute on many things.

First, I'd like to (try to) clear up a few misconceptions about Marx that linger implacably in the minds of almost all Americans.

1) The Soviet Union, China, etc. were not Communist societies.
They were brutal dictatorships under the guise of communism, using it as an ideological blanket to mask their terrible atrocities. Moreover, Marx intended for Communism to evolve out of Capitalist societies (i.e., Britain and America during his time), not out of the feudalistic Russia/China. The argument that Communism killed 100 million is just wrong--dictators corrupting the ideas of communism (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) did so. So yes, Marx caused the deaths of 100 million in the same way Adam Smith caused the deaths of the Chinese and Irish immigrants who toiled on the railroad--in other words, not at all.

2.) Marxism =/= violence.
In certain places, especially the Manifesto, Marx does permit violence, and, indeed, advocate it. But Marx does not think it NECESSARY--that's the key point. Good Marxist thinkers, and I believe Marx himself, would say that communistic reforms could come just as easily and likely more efficiently from peaceful processes, as we have seen them for the most part in the United States.

3.) Communism is not welfare statism.
In fact, in a, actually realized communist society (unlikely to ever happen, I'll admit) there would be no government. Marx advocated the PEOPLE owning the means of production, not the state. This is a HUGE error that many make when reading Marx. I suspect he was just as distrusting of the state as your average libertarian, he just thought it necessary to rectify some of the wrongs of capitalism and a necessary step toward communism. Note the use of step there: Marx, taking from his predecessor Hegel, believes everything must proceed in steps!!

4.) The Communist Manifesto is not the end-all of communism.
Honestly, the Manifesto is a rather juvenile work compared to many of Marx's other writings, like DAS KAPITAL or GRUNDRISSE. It was intended as a sort of primer to communism, accessible to the common, sparsely-educated worker of Marx's time, and is a better demonstration of Marx/Engel's (everyone forgets about poor Engels!) rhetorical ability than of their thought proper.

I also believe that the Manifesto isn't really the best place to start. It breeds far too many misconceptions about communist thought, partly due to its theatricality, partly due to the way it has been misconstrued throughout the decades. If you do start with the Manifesto, as most people do, PLEASE continue on and read more about Marx! Trust me, it's worth it, and you learn the extreme depth of his theory.

One need only look at their time to understand why Marx and Engels were so infuriated at the capitalist system. Those years of the Industrial Revolution were an exciting and terrifying time. New wealth and new commodities were springing up constantly, but they tended to be concentrated in the hands of very few, while created at the expense of millions of common, downtrodden labourers. Those who attack government regulation of corporations should study the Gilded Age of America, and the Industrial Revolution in England. Child labourer, no safety laws whatsoever, no minimum wage, no work-week, no fair bargaining between workers and employees, government subsidizing of wealthy corporations, union-busters, etc. Is there any wonder Marx and Engels, who were essentially exiled to England during this time, were filled with such anger at the system that caused so much human suffering?

Marx's critique of capitalism is in my estimate the strongest part of his theory, and it is likely that his witnessing the above exploitations of workers is why it is so strong, and why the Manifesto seems so... angry. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in Marxist theory pick up a copy of the Marx-Engels Reader (also available on Amazon) and read through the "Critique of Capitalism" section, which offers selections from his writings under this topic.

How right Marx was is for the reader to decide. Again, I find his critique of capitalism VERY accurate, and believe the only reason his predictions haven't come to fruition to be because we implemented some of his recommended policies (we now live in a blended economy, somewhere on the spectrum between pure capitalism and communism). Communism itself is a bit silly, but not so much as the anti-Marxists make it out to be. The real take-away point here is that you should study (not read, STUDY) Marx for yourself, and not accept what I, or the anti-Marxists, tell you.

From: "The Corner Office" in the "INsights" section of Bnet.com, Sept. 3, 2008

By Peter Galuszka

The "Numerati" are an evolving class of quant-humping, algorithm experts who will be playing an enormous role in shaping our society, our economy and our lives. They are the types who founded Google and Yahoo but they are going beyond simple searching to manipulating and massaging the tremendous mass of data that we generate from Web clicks and cell phones.

Stephen Baker has written an engrossing, elegant little book (Houghton Mifflin) about the entire genre of data mining mathematicians who are at the controls of this revolution. It's been a while since I've read a business book this good, but I must disclose that Steve has been a colleague of mine off and on for 20 years. I have always admired his writing and analytic talent and his way of explaining things in ways that are both warm-hearted and wry.

Who are the Numerati? There's Samer Takriti, the Syrian-born math Ph.D. who works for IBM and is an expert at stochastic analysis, or trying to tie predictions to random seemingly events. M.I.T.-trained Frenchman Pierre Haren is a whiz at arranging that airplane passengers from mainland China and Taiwan don't bump into each other at Singapore's airport. And, there's Rayid Ghani, a Pakistani whose expertise is studying shopping behavior by examining lots and lots of receipts. These are just a few.

Non-techies such as myself can learn a lot from Steve's book. For instance, bargain-clipping shoppers who roam from store to store snapping up specials are called "barnacles" by data miners because they are useless drains on grocery chains which count their very slender profit margins in tens of a percentage point. In the political realm, there are "Right Clickers," who are conservatives who are so savvy with computers they instinctively click on the right side of a mouse and are prime candidates for Web-based fund raising.

And, if you have an elderly parent as I do, you might be interested to know that data miners are considering putting in linoleum kitchen floors filled with sensors that can reveal tell-tale signs of problems such as weight gain. If the gain is sudden, it can mean that the elderly one is retaining lung fluid because of heart malfunctions. Or, erratic patterns can signal the onset of Alzheimer's.

Steve visits the National Security Agency which has drawn criticism for collecting billions of data bits from e-mails and cell phone calls after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The problem, an NSA mathematician explains, is that while they can handle the massive data, it is really hard to match a name with a face, which is the sine qua non of snaring terrorists.

Some of the material is familiar as are some of the fears. Bosses can hover over us with an electronic clipboard threatening our personal privacy. Every single movement of our life can be tracked thanks to grocery loyalty cards and traffic toll payment devices.

There has been plenty written about the Data Big Brother controlling us. To Steve's credit, he doesn't fall victim to hyperventilating paranoia. He addresses the good and the bad that can come with the Numerati's growing ability to watch us and predict our next moves.

My only criticism is that the book is a little too short. I wanted Steve to draw even more detailed sketches of the individual Numerati. All in all, though, his book is excellent.

Read the blog post at:
http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=1321

I generally hate math, but The Numerati is written for people like me. It's a light journey through the data-driven world we live in and the world we will live in soon. If you think that math-generated things like amazon's "recommendations" are a cool feature of our modern world, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The Numerati answers some of the questions you may have wondered about and many that you hadn't thought of. All the while, you are entertained and pulled along by really great writing. For a non-fiction book, it's a page-turner. Enjoy!

Great read. The topic and the coverage are a big picture look at the way our world works that is fascinating but what would make me want to read anything Stephen Baker writes is his style. His writing is smooth, like a good song with lots of funny, quirky little observations that made me smile. My favorite part was about blogging, learned a great deal and was amused all along the way.

First of all, I realize this book is slightly dated, in that it was published 17 years ago. The unfortunate thing is that I don't believe much has changed since Kozol wrote it... if there have been major changes, he wouldn't have found it necessary to write his second book, Shame of the Nation, or continue to push for equal-opportunity education like he is still doing today. So, although this book was researched and written awhile ago, I do believe it is still relevant for discussion today.

This book is sad. Plain and simple, it made me very sad to read about the way these kids have to "learn" every single day. Children who live in poverty every single day of their lives, who struggle just to get a decent meal and a good night's sleep, who cannot count on safety, a clean environment, or even love from their families, should absolutely, 100% have one place they can call their sanctuary - their school. Unfortunately, this book showed that is simply not the case. Children who live in these horrifying conditions of dire poverty are going to "schools" (and I say that loosely because some of the schools Kozol describes simply are not places to learn) that are decrepit, dirty, disgusting, with not enough space, not enough teachers, not enough books, no computers, and sometimes not even enough working toilets. There isn't another way to describe this book other than horrifying. Pure and simple, we should not be allowing any child to spend a minute in these conditions, let alone every day for eight hours a day. This book is heartbreaking to read, but it needs to be read, because I truly do not think that conditions have changed since the book was published in 1991. This is something that, as a country, we need to improve, big time. Our future literally depends on it.

Kozol begins his book by writing about east St.Louis. Wikipedia writes about East St.Louis as one of the most crime-ridden cities in the nation. This is one of the poorest cities in America and of course the school system suffers. The school buildings are run down, bathrooms are broken, and the kids don't have textbooks to study from. The physics labs haven't had water for 25 years and the sports field is completely in ruins . A lot of industrial waste is dumped here from the chemical factories that have established themselves in these areas. Usually it happends by accident when trains with the stuff spills it out on the ground. Then an alarm sounds and people have to take cover. But the kids here suffer from lead poisoning, high asthma rates and other diseases that can be traced to the toxic elements that surround them. The neighbourhoods themselves are filled with 24 hour liquor stores, strip bars, gambling houses, and dealers roaming the streets at night. Its hard to think of a worse start for a kid.

He writes of another neighbourhood in Chicago, called North Lawndale. That was a vibrant community until the riots after Martin Luther Kings death when a lot of the businesses where destroyed. It never really recovered. Now the gangs have moved in and the industries have moved out. A pastor from the area says"kids like these will kill each other over nothing". Dr.Martin Luther King himself lived there but there is no memorial. Only an old truck stands at the spot where his house once was. The schools here are also in terrible condition. Out of a kindergarten class of 23 kids 14 will drop out. 4 at most will go to college. 1 of those 4 will graduate. Three of the twelve boys will have spent time in prison. A few teachers are great but mainly there is a shortage of teachers, leaving many classrooms without one. In fact these kids are economically getting much less than the kids are in the richer areas. Although many adults say that one should not tell these poor kids that because that would encourage "victim" thinking. Although I would feel like a victim if I was reading a textbook that said Nixon was president like some of these kids do! Top salary of a teacher in an underpriveledged innercity school is 40000 dollars a year whereas in a suburb up to 60000 dollars. About 2900 dollars is spent every year on a child in a poor neighbourhood whereas 7800 dollars is spent on a child in a rich one. There is a silent understanding amongst many corporations that the kids in the inner city schools are perfect for the bottom end jobs that they offer. They aren't expected to become doctors or lawyers. This has led to principles and teachers of these innercity schools in "framing their language carefully" when requesting grants or money from corporations to "train ghetto children to become good employees".

In the Bronx one school that is overpopulated is located in an old roller skating rink. It was made to fit 1000 people now there are 1550 people there. The interior is old and falling apart. Too many people crowd into small rooms and many of the windows are broken. There are hardly any computers and the school is surrounded by heavy traffic. In another Bronx school there is a gaping hole in a classroom floor, the blackboards are so cracked that students risk cutting themselves on them when writing, paint flakes off the wall and covers the floor, and when it rains theres a waterfall flowing down the six flights of stairs in the school. Out of 500 freshmen from one school 82 will go on to take the SAT. On the other hand a school in a well off district is close to a park with lots of flowers around it. 825 kids attend this school. Here the library contains 8000 books in contrast to the skating rink school library that contained 700 books.

Wan to understand why our education system is in the shape that it's in? READ THIS BOOK! Explains why lower income schools perform the way they do....must have for any educator's collective of continuing education books. Worth reading twice!!

Kozol's Savage Inequalities paints a frightening picture of urban schools in the United States. He describes schools that are overcrowded, dilapidated, and flooded with sewage. He asks why we allow our children to go to schools in conditions where none of us would choose to work. He deeply explores the issue of inequality in funding. While he does suggest equalizing funding, he is careful to mention that the problems facing schools are complex and require innovative solutions. I know many teachers have read this book, but we need policymakers and elected officials to read it as well.

I needed this book for a class I was taking. WOW!, it was a real eye-opener. As it was really hard to read because it is sad. How amazing that there are schools here in the United States that are in dire need. I would reccomend it, but be prepared to cry.

As the title of my review indicates, this book is to philosophy what chicken nuggets are to fine dining. Tolle is an egotistic flake and his book is a cheap rip-off of Eastern philosophy. His dramatic pretenses at enlightenment, i.e. dead pan stare and drone-like speech, remind me of the scene inside a Buddhist monastery in Jim Carey's Ace Ventura.

What a joke. Oprah has gone off the New Age deep end.

Eckart Tolle is a great teacher! He puts into words what many teachers have tought before, but the way he explains it is very well suited to make rational Western people get a glimpse of Reality beyond thinking.

Jesus was not on the path of enlightenment. He died on your behalf. literaly. compare what this book says about Jesus and find the quotes in the Bible and see for yourself... Tolle is using Jesus' words for his personal gain. how much has he made on this book alone?

I just finished this book last night. What an endurance contest, it reminded me of the time I drank the new Coca Cola formula. I put my hand to my forehead and said to myself, "What were they thinking"? Same thing here, but worse because people are taking this David Koresh wannabe seriously.

Fantastic Book. Literally life-changing. Awesome! Thank you Eckhart Tolle. Thank you Oprah for webcasts and thank you Amazon for super service!

On a whim I picked this one up, knowing of it and recognizing the book title. I knew nothing of what the book was about, except what I could surmise from the cover.

I was a little put off initially with the way Hesse wrote, kind of flighty with nothing too concrete or definite. Is it a spiritual quest, a personal quest and so on. Then as Siddhartha grows older within the book we begin to see the natural progression from one mental/spiritual situation to the next. We see him go from spiritual, to rich, gambling, to being poor to a heightened spiritual state and so on.

All in all, after I worked my way into the flesh of Hesse's writing, I began to enjoy Siddhartha. You feel as though you are on the spiritual voyage with him and can understand where he is coming from. I am glad that there were only 150 pages and it was a fast read, because I most certainly would not want to read this style of writing for very long. I would recommend.

4 stars.

A journey through the life of a man with a single purpose: to find his own truth.

Knowing that the only way to discover life's greatest mysteries is to go through the heart of them alone, he finds himself living one extreme after another until he finally rests in the balance.

The ending will either leave you glowing or pondering, but either way you will not regret taking the time to read this remarkable tale.

Although I can understand the longing to separate oneself from the frustrations and hypocrisy of human life, it does seem like an abandonment rather than an accomplishment to me. Maybe because of this, and because I had been exposed to the tenets of both Buddhism and Hinduism prior to reading this novel, I didn't find it as life-altering and uplifting as many others find it. If you're new to eastern philosophy, this could be a good general introduction.

I have never been a huge fan of philosophy, but I can see why this little tome is considered a classic. It is a life's journey and a profound look into the soul. Siddhartha's journey and his desire to be spiritually fulfilled began as a Brahmin's son, then as an ascetic, then into a life of lust and material possessions, and finally into a peaceful life as a ferry driver. With all his outward searching, Siddhartha comes to realize that inner peace is not achieved through lessons from a teacher, or fasting, or worldliness. It is an inward reflection, a recognition of self. This book challenges the ideas of love and nature, among other things.

Siddhartha is a man on a spiritual journey. German writer, Herman Hesse, starts off strong about a man who is willing to give up everything in search of his self and to live without the needs and comforts of life. Siddhartha is searching for meaning which includes a spiritual journey without material possessions and even relationships. He has a love relationship with Kamalah who would provide him his son, something that she predicted. That is where the story, I think gets lost. Instead the book sort of lost it's way rearding Siddhartha's journey by his relationship with Kamalah and his search for religion and spiritualism is brushed aside by his relationships with one woman and his quest to continue to find himself. Hesse is an interesting writer in that he starts strongly trying to help us find our own spiritual center much like Siddhartha has in his life and he gets lost along the way or is detoured. Despite it's short length, it's quite a powerful book but it loses it's punch midway in the novel